Some of this discussion about the merits of LISP-ALT and of other schemes is only happening on the RRG list and so is not on the other lists crossposted in this reply.
http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/ Hi Brian, You wrote, in part: > 1. Large companies with their own international networks will > surely never adopt a solution which doesn't allow them to have > a straightforward, consistent and 100% internally managed > addressing plan. I agree. In my view, this means they want and need portable address space. I think placing "portable" anywhere near "address" in a sentence makes some peoples' teeth itch, including especially yourself! But I think this is what networks want and need: stable public address space they retain for year after year, and can use via any ISP, ideally being able to split it up very finely between multiple ISPs and to change which ISP they use it with - quickly and with little cost to themselves or other people. The core-edge separation schemes LISP, APT and Ivip all provide portable address space, like PI space, but not handled directly by BGP, not obtained in necessarily big chunks and probably obtained from some company or other organisation, rather than directly from an RIR. Also, this new kind of space (I call it Scalable PI space) can be sliced up much more finely by the scheme's mapping system, down to the individual IP address, compared to the administrative limits placed on BGP's finesse, such as /24 for IPv4. (Ivip only goes to /64 resolution for IPv6.) This space will have initial and ongoing costs, but it won't involve BGP expertise, BGP routers, being an AS etc. > 2. They also won't adopt a solution in which local customers > experience world-crossing delays for accessing local sites. > They will use DNS tricks, redirects, CDNs, and overlay routing > to get round this. I agree. This rules out the use of a core-edge separation scheme with a global query server system (LISP-CONS, LISP-ALT and TRRP). There are ways of caching the mapping closer to ITRs, but this raises problems. > It's to be hoped that loc/id solutions such as LISP will be viewed > as a help in this game rather than as a new enemy. I tend to think that HIP is a real locator ID separation system. I don't think of LISP, APT or Ivip in these terms. I think "Core edge separation scheme" is a better general term for LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP. (Maybe RANGER too.) But I agree - if LISP-ALT only provides a global query server system and if it became "The Routing Scaling Solution" for solving the routing scaling problem, then I think many people would consider the delays and fragility of a global query server system sufficient reason not to adopt the scheme. Yet, in order to solve the routing scaling problem, we need pretty much all end-user networks, large and small (who want multihoming, portability etc.) to adopt the one scheme. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
